Details, schmetails

Starmer has truly shown this country that he is the best Prime Minister that money can buy.
As a patrolling Police officer, I was disciplined for accepting a cup of tea and slice of cake from a lovely, elderly, lady I was taking a witness statement from.

He’s already been cleared by the inquiry that will start next week.

In fairness Tim the rest of his analysis is actually probably the most coherent thing I have seen from him in some time:

Firstly, the message Starmer is sending is that he cannot live within his means, although he and his Chancellor are sending out the message to the country that it, and the most vulnerable within it, must do so. This stinks of hypocrisy, which any serious politician should have been able to sense a mile off and not gone near.

Almost as bad as insisting on completer transparency from one’s opponents while simultaneously saying that donors contributing to your own blog have a ‘right to privacy’ or deflecting questions about an LLP set up for the benefit of one’s own son as ‘inappropriate’.

Second, the receipt of these gifts presents Starmer as possessed of a sense of entitlement, which impression he would, again, have not given near if he was possessed of any serious political antennae.

Almost like blogging around issues (for example the Scottish economy and ‘Tax Justice’) and expecting that the government of the day would reward you with some kind of sinecure which would provide a cure for your financial woes (See posts on ‘the need to cut interest rates passim)

Third, the vanity implicit in many of the items funded suggests that he is either a superficial man or one deeply insecure about himself. The message is that he is either more interested in appearance than substance or so insecure about himself that he thinks that fashionable trappings will improve his standing, at least in his own eyes. In either case the message is one of insecurity that ill becomes a prime minister

Almost as insecure as someone who thinks British Sugar is paying people to write critical comments on his blog or whom has blocked 25,000 commentators on Twitter.

And then there is the indifference implicit in his actions. He can have these things because others might pay for them. He seems untroubled that others may not be so fortunate.

Coupled with that is an indifference to inequality: he wishes the world to note he is not one with everyone else. That is most unwise for a supposedly Labour prime minister. ,/i>

A bit like saying that those that like Imperial measurements can simply ‘Go Metric’ or that those who like to eat meat or travel by car be prevented from doing so by legislative fiat. Or saying that because certain phone apps are ‘unnecessary’ then they need to be forcibly removed from your phone.

And, with all these being noted, nothing overcomes the sense that he is being bought. Would, after all, these gifts have been made if he was not the leader of the Labour Party? So why were they made to him, and not the Party, because he was? It’s a question that he must have known would have been asked, and that should have been avoided, even if there is an entirely innocent explanation for what has happened. The natural cynicism of many towards politicians makes that inevitable.

Then, put this in the context of his chosen political fight, which is with those children and pensioners who have apparently brought this country to its knees and must pay the price for having done so in his obvious opinion, and this all becomes even harder to comprehend. The message is glaringly obviously that he is deserving and that millions possessed of insufficient to meet the basics of living are not. It really is an odious political message.

Similar to someone looking to steal private savings and pensions to fund projects that have no popular backing and then complaining when anyone dare threaten his own inflation -linked final salary scheme.

I’d say, physician, heal thyself but he’d probably consider it being over-critical of the NHS. What an absolute blowhard. Definitely hope ISIS get hold of him and he starts berating them on ‘Funding the future’ sooner rather than later.

Steve

What a movie that was, and indeed the quotes around Parliament are as apt today as they were then, perhaps even more so!

Has this House gone once
to the people it purports to represent?
No, it has not! And after six years
of misgovernment, what do we find?
Sir Thomas Fairfax moves a bill to give this House a further lease…
…of its worthless
and dishonourable life!
Gentlemen, an immovable Parliament
is more obnoxious…
…than an immovable king!
You are drunkards, tricksters,
villains, whoremasters…
…godless, self-seeking,
ambitious tricksters.
You are no more capable of conducting
the nation’s affairs…
…than you are of running a brothel!
You are scum, sir.
And not truly elected scum at that.
This is no Parliament.
I shall put an end to it.

I doubt there is a minister or shadow minister capable of running a successful brothel. Almost the entire political class worship Islam above Christianity. All are villains who want to destroy the English people.

Yes, Cromwell could have been speaking now for sure, and indeed I’d be more than happy to see David Lammy and others suffer a similar fate to the one he did after his death,